he 


ly te ‘PREFACE 


to what body such resignation should be cain the Committee 
beg leave to recommend to the Convention: ‘the adoption of the 
POW Ine, resolution:x— 

£6 Resolved, ‘Vnat the Right Rev. Philander Chase, by. his let- 
ter of resignation addressed to the Ohio Convention, and by his. 
removal from that State to the Territory of Michigan, | has effectu- 
ally renounced and relinquished. his. Episcopal charge of the Dio- 
cese of Ohio. and that the Episcopacy of the said Diocese was in 
fact vacant previous” to the Sth of September, 1832.7 a ease 
- “All which 1 is respectfully submitted, TE ar ere te, 


ee ot ogee 


on order of the iGonuitleess ek i sy x : 

| “WILLIAM WHITE, Chairman.” | oe 

A true copy. of the Report of the Committee. ee 
(Attest) «= HENRY ne 


Secr etary o the House ig Clerical and Lay Deputies. : 


Rk E p 0 R To | 
of the Minority of the Committee on Bisuor Cuasr’s Case. 


NEw York, October 20, 1832. 


“The Minority j in ie Juint Committee on the subject of. Bishop 
Chase’s rumored relinquishment of the Episcapal charge of the 
Diocese of Ohio, constituting one half of the Committee appoint- 
ed by this House, concurring with the majority of the joint Com- 
mittee in the general statement of facts reported to the Conven- 
vention, but not concurring in the opinion expressed or. implied in 
the said Report, beg leave respectfully, to present their judgment 
on the matters brought before them in joint Committee. 

The Minority are of opinion that the adoption of the following 
resolutions will constitute the pw istat and safest measures to be 
taken in the premises. 

Resolved, 'Vhe House of Bishops concur rring, that i in 1 the opinion 
of this Convention, itis expedient that the House of Bishops should 
address a pastoral letter to the Diocese of Ohio, and a fr afernal 
communication to the Right Rev. Philander Chase, with a view 
to healing the existing separation between Bishop Chase and the 
Diocese of Ohio. | 


Ee PREFACE. | : v 


Resolved, “That until such a - step shall have been taken, this 
‘Convention ought not to sanction, by any act, the existing Sag 
ration of Bishop | Chase from the Diocese of Ohio. | 

"Resolved, That, as the Diocese of Ohio has been nahen Epis: 
“copal services since September 9th, 1831, and is at present desti- 
tute of the : ‘same, it is the opinion of this” Convention, that unless _ 
the existing separation. between Bishop Chase and the Diocese of 

- Ohio, be settled by a re-union of the said: par ‘ties | before the first 
day. of May next, the Standing Committees of the different dio- 
_ ceses oughtto sanction the election of any clergyman who may be 
on elected to ‘the office of Bishop of the Diocese of Ohio after that 
é date. « se Pe 
Re eed. That. any. ‘Canon eased by Pe Convention touching 
cab “the subject of the resignation of Bishops, shall not be constr ued 
__ to apply to the existing separation of Bishop Chase from Ohio. 
Al which is ig. nee submitted. 


an 


| WILLIAM H. DELANCEY, 
Be oe ‘THOMAS LYELL, 
ee SAMUEL J. DONALDSON.” 
A true copy of the Report of the Minority of the Committee. 
ie (Attest) _ oe HENRY. ANTHON, 


_Seerctary of t the House cof Clerical and tay ‘Dep ulses. 


“and solicit: the attention, of the Wouike 4 feel that ‘he question I 


am to ‘approach, is one of the most important, and one of the most 
‘ a lelidatey that eons come before this: body. Yet, asit is one 
‘to which I have devoted. no little reflection, and given some study, 
and in the decision. of which I feel ‘a deep concern, I must beg 
our indulgence while I | present to you the train of thought which 
as passed through my own tind, and by which I have been led 
to the determination how to act when the question shall be taken, 
Lavow that the resolution recommended by the Joint Committee, 2 
‘expresses ‘exactly my views | of. the Case, and of the. decision to 
which this house should come. To the resolutions of the minori- — 
y of the Committee, which ar also” under. consideration, there : 
ppear. to my mind strong” and. palpable. objections. I consider it” 
~ impossible to accomplish. ‘the reconciliation they propose. The — 
_ground. already taken by. Bishop Chase, and. the measures taken 
~by the Convention. of Ohio, leave no: hope of such an issue. And 
were it possible, 1 really cannot believe that it would be expedi- 
ent, Matters have gone too far to furnish the least hope that 
there can ever be restored that harmony, that affection, and that 
confidence, which ought to exist between a Bishop and his Dio- 
cese. Ido not intend, however, to go over the whole ground co- 
vered by these resolutions ; nor do I design to examine the i ingeni- 
ous arguments which fee been advanced by the gentlemen who 
have adyocated the report of the minority. ‘This will be done 
_ with more ability by those who will succeed me. I intend to 
confine myself to the inquiry. whether there iS,. and was at the 
', time of Dr. MclIlvaine’s election, a vacancy in the Episcopate of 
Ohio. If it shall be proved that there ‘was, it remains for us to 
proceed exactly as we do in other cases, according to the canon- 
ical directions provided by the Church, and uninfluenced by any 
considerations of mere expediency, =~ 


m4 


i from bie Discese! tious ne animus a "Bat 1 shall 
dertake to shew, that the Diocese is: vacant by. the fact of his Te 

z signalion. alone. independently of the abandonment. And ly thin : 
it very ‘important that the resignation. should be. urged, because L 
find that many members of this house are not satisfied that there 
is an abandonment, —that i is, a removal without the. animus ‘rever- 
fendi ; and hesitate i in the case, merely because of doubts about 
the Iavinines and propriety of Episcopal resignations, — be shall, 
therefore, confine myself to the inquiry whether a Bishop can 
lawfully and properly resign ‘the jurisdiction of his Diocese. «I 
think I shall make iPappear, that there was no just impediment 
to the exercise of such an act on the part of Bishop Chase ; and 
that his withdrawal from the Episcopate by resignation has crea- 
ted a true and. canonical vacancy - in his Bishopric. The gentle- 
man who. opened this debate, (President Duer, of N. ¥ has al- 
ready delivered. an elaborate and. learned argument on this sub- 
ject, of which T shall only. say, ‘omne tulit punctum.”? But there 
are some views of the matter to which he did not advert, and. 
some upon which he only briefly touched. These, I shall endea- 
vour to present, avoiding, as much as possible, the ground over 
which he has already so “ubnaghaely, Sone. 


- That a Bishop cannot divest himself. of his Apostolic character, 
a n hi —— powersy Ao weall agree. The 


elected him to be its ts head. | The former i is ee because divine: 
—the latter i isa mere matter of ecclesiastical regulation ; ‘and of hu- 
man agreement. — This distinction need not hy oe upon: we 
all understand it, and. all: “admit it. 

_ Now, then, I come to the grand, ‘master-question, can a Bishop 
Bone. resign ‘the Jurisdiction of his Diocese? ‘To settle this ques- 
Hon, we must ascertain several par ticulars. | 
gab t here is. any law of the Church which prohibits the resigna- 
care of a Bishop, the production | of that law. must at once silence. 
debate, and produce conviction. No 0 one here will sanction a - 
proceeding which the Church has. forbidden. But [ have never 


# yet seen, or heard of, any such law. At: will not be asserted, ae 
will venture to say, that there i is an y express statutory prohibition — : 
which bears'upon this point—any canon which prevents a. Bishop’ Ss > 


“resignation, If there i is any. such canon, let it be produced, and 
all debate will end. It is true, it has beea said” that the decision 
made by the house of Bishops at the Convention. at ‘Trenton in 
the year 1801, has the force of law. That reverend body then 
declared their conviction that episcopal resignations are inad- 
missible. If it was a law, it was an ex post facto law, and there- 
fore wholly null. But they themselves never intended to give to 
their mere opinion even officially expressed, the force of law. It 
was a decision upon which the lower house did not act, and in 
which they never concurred. And though | it may be said, and 
has been said, that the Bishops then made no new. law, but mere~ 
ly exercised their jurisdictional prerogative, ‘and. declared what 
the law already was; eyen this act of adjudication can have no 
obligatory force, because it was altogether extra-official and ex- 
tra-canonical, and never received the concurrence of the lower 
house: whereas the $d article of the Constitution provides, that 
¢ all acts of the Conyention shall be authenticated by both houses.” 

All “acts,” of whatever character—even acts of adjudication, 


and declaratory resolutions, must be thus sanctioned. There is 
4 a 


ee EES Abaya ha OEE a oy Sp hm RS TO REO nd OD Mie SESE Rryg = See eat Granary ee Ae. OM ee 


10 


no force in what the Bishops may declare as their opinion, except 
in the merits and correctness of the opinion ‘itself. As Bi shop: 
Hobart mol said, Ahe Ee Church paca PEE ively, only. 


tion,—and no fons for inferenees from: oes themselves. 
merely implied. Yet I am<willing to ‘subject: the inquiry upon - 


which I have entered, to mopthor test. If there is. in ‘the consecra- 


not resign, and that there i is no vacancy in the Episcopal = Ohio. 
| But 1 have carefully and repeatedly examined the Ordinal, and 
can find” nothing: there to forbid or ' discountenance the measure, 
ine the ‘office of cinerea pfrontbits: the resignation of a 
Bishop, that may not be found in the ordination ofa priest to for- 
bid his resigning the charge of his parish. Yet the resignation 
of parish ministers is a frequent matter, (unhappily it is too fre- 
quent, )—-which no- one, . however, objects to. on this ground. 
Even instituted Rectors, bound by additional and peculiarly so- 
lemn obligations to their flocks, may and do resign ;—but no one 
thinks such a measure inconsistent with the tenor of the ordi- 
nation office, or the vows they assumed when they were admitted 
to the priesthood. I cannot ‘conceive ‘where gentlemen find in 
the Ordinal any objection. to the resignation of a Bishop. To 
my mind it is. pais there i is ‘no such thing there. Let it be aa 
duced if there i 186335 ot vag Ae zi 

There may be no express are to inhibit the: measure; and there 
may be nothing against it in- the Ordinal, and yet, though not 
contrary to canon, or statute law, the. resignation of a Bishop may 
‘contravene a principle of what may be called ecclesiastical com- 
mon law :—it may be at ~eariance with the distinct wnderstanding 
under which he is elected and consecrated. It is true that when 


| 


« ii 


a Bishop i is- acted and constelatedss it is under the general sup— 
‘position | that he will not resign. . The “understanding i is, if you 
please, that. he will retain his’ diocesan. jurisdiction during life. . 
‘But this is the understanding with which a parish minister is 
settled in. a living, and with which. both , leacons and priests are 
admitted to r or Yet no one s0 interprets the rule of 
“understanding, ; as to think’ that a ‘minister i is to die the pastor of 
. the first flock over which he happens to be settled. Lam very cer- 
tain the clergy generally. have no such idea 3—and many of them, 
~ to. my knowledge, have no ‘such intentions And who does not 
3 “know, that, the understanding nev ertheless, both priests and dea- 
cons do cease, snot. only from. pastoral duties, but even from the 
"exercise of the ministry itself? It is conceded that there is a 
“ general understanding, that a Bishop. when elected and consecra- 
“ ted, is to serve his diocese for life. s—but it is not such an under- 
“standing as to amouut to an indissoluble contract which neither 
s party can annul, and which no. circumstances can. occur to ren= . 
- der it necessary or expedient. to ‘dissolve. : There will be, i am 
“aware, differences of opinion as to how far the understanding i in 
question has the force of law, or is binding upon the honor and the 
conscience. But, whatever views may | be entertained upon ‘this / 
point, I presume, the strongest inference can ‘de only that a Bishop 
ought not to resign, not that he cannot. In the general correct— 
ness of such an opinion, I am ready to acquiesce, Indeed, I sup- 
pose, none of us would question its propr iety. But must belicye, © 
until it is proved to me that: 1 am wrong, that there is no such 
understanding at the consecration of a Bishop as must bind him, 
as aman ofhonor and a man of conscience, forever to his diocese. 
I think, then, that we have seen that there is no express law, 
no canonical legislation, which prevents the withdrawal of a 
Bishop from his episcopal jurisdiction ; that there. ‘is ‘nothing | in 
the ordinal unfavorable to such a measure; and that the rule of 
common understanding is not of a character to amount. to’a pro- 
hibition. At-least it is clear to. me that these. positions: are cor- 
rect. I am ready to abandon them when they are overturned. 
But it may be, as has been contended, ‘that the resignation of a 
Bishop conflicts with the very essential principles of episcopacy. If 
this shall be made out to my satisfaction by any thing that may 


4 > i 


bate, to the epeeniliy: “dae | 
I was Spry, to hy E anys we 


sal 


only ina certain way. If there are any ‘of o our. ron n 
minded as all this, {lt will-not allow myself to. suppose t hat 
is even-one,) Iam sure that. wé have in the character of the re-_ 
yerend and ‘enlightened body. assembled here, good Re 


while I disclaim, ain re ‘do solemnly disclaim,all party contends Z 
: tions, Imust avow that I am a thorough Episcopalian; that Lam - 
for preserving the ancient landmarks ; 3 and am. for carrying. out- 
Episcopancy to its full extent. : T ‘never could see the wisdom of 
refusing to follow a fact as far as it will go; or of hesitating to 
adopt the consequences “of : a truth, as well as the truth itself.— 
This i is a timid policy. which I do not intend shall ever influence: 
me. I say again, that 1 am a thorough Episcopalian—I am for 
practical Episcopacy, not for mere abstract, theoretical E:piscopa- 
cy. As amere theory, or even as a mere naked fact, it is not 
worth contending for. In this respect at least,—so far as a tho- 
rough conviction of the truth of Episcopacy, and a high regard 
for its principles, and its principles. -in their legitimate practical 
bearings, are the question, I do not scruple to say 1am as high a 
churchman as any body. I, therefore, can never consent that 
any thing : shall be done that i is inconsistent with the great: princi- 
ples of. Apostolic order which have | ‘ever been received: by-‘ the 
Holy Church throughout all tlie world.” I must, then, be satisfied 
whether or not there is: any thing i in the resignation of a Bishop 
that is repugnant. to the fundamental principles of Episcopacy, 
before I can be prepared to act in the business before’-us.— 
It is upon the ground that it is at variance with these valued 
principles, that some rest all their objections to the resignation 


1g 


I shop’ Chase. ~Tyenture to” express: the: ‘opinion that there is 
io such. inconsistency a as is alleged i in the case before us; and I think 
that Iam able to fortify and sustain my opinion by facts that’ cannot 
be: controverted. T feel that T ought t speak with diffidence and: 
caution, ‘under: the circumstances. in which | [ stand. AS different 
opinion has been “expressed by high: -authority—and” authority _ 
which from “my: childhood ‘Thave been taught to reverence, and 
which all m my ‘life I have been accustomed to respect. But we 
are not to be influenced by authority here:—we are to be guided 
ye facts’ only. ‘The venerable house of Bishops when, in the Con- 
vention: assembled. at Treuton in September 1801, the matter of 
‘Bishop Moore’s ‘consecration was brought before them, expressed 
the opinion that a Bishop’s resignation was not ‘consistent with 
ecclesiastical order.’ I must dissent from this opinion, though f 
do so with deference. It is with great deference, I dissent from 


the. ‘respectable members of this. house who have advanced the 2 
same sentiment. The best way, ‘and ‘indeed ‘the only way, toe 


discover whether Episcopal | resignations - ‘are ‘inconsistent with 

ecclesiastical order, or the principles of Episcopacy, will be to as-— 

certain what has been ecclesiastical practice in the matter. The 
opinion of the Bishops at Trenton that the resignation of Bishop 
Provoost was not consistent with ‘ecclesiastical order,’ was. founded 
upon their belief that the practice of the Church did not sanction such 
a measure. At the conference which they had with the clerical 
delegates from New York on that occasion, it seems that not one 
of the seven divines present, including the three Bishops, could 
inention or recollect a single case of the kind furnished by eccle- 
siastical history. It was, therefore, at once concluded, (for I 
suppose there was no time for research,) that: there had been no 
such practice, and that consequently the measure of Bishop: Pro- 
voost was anti-episcopal and void. I hope, however, to be able to 
shew, that episcopal resignations have been sanctioned” ‘in all 
ages of the Church; and that they are, therefore, by no means at 
variance with eceleniitatical order, | or ‘the established principles of 
Episcopacy. The well settled and undisputed usage of the Church, 
it is presumed, is the criterion of Church order and episcopal 
principle. Now let us see how stand the facts. I say that the 
resignation of a Bishop does not conflict with ecclesiastical: order, or 


pal the principles of Bie 


eeyee 


fae now - permit e to sta 


Vhs 


is ie pcs 


fe be onc we 


tells us indeed, that ies some tee thought Sa iauat ae 
ful for; a Bishop to forsake his first « see;’ *—but he says, * this was 
but the private opinion of one or. two authors,” and never gener- 
Bale prevailed | Some few. ancient. Bishops too, it is admitted, 
refused to exchange their “sees, upon conscientious grounds ; and 
‘among. them, was the celebrated historian ‘Eusebius,+ who declin- 
ed the rich. patriarchate of Antioch, and preferred retaining the 
“comparatively insignificant diocese of Cesarea, on. the ground 
that the practice. was disreputable and improper. ‘Translations, 
however, we know, were frequent in ancient times, and were al- 
_lowed by the general sanction of the early Church, and the can- 
nons of ancient councils. By the Apostolical canons, as they are 
called, which were in existence, according to the best opinions, 
as early as the 2d_ century, and without doubt as early as the 3d, 
and. which certainly embody the laws by which primitive ecclesi- 
astical discipline was administered, translations. were expressly 
allowed. for reasonable cause.|}. @ “And” in the African Church, a 

Bishop ' was sometimes: panistied. for. preetpents = in his office, by 


by Conc. Nic: c. 15. cone: Sardi: . and 2. Cone. Antiveh: c. 21. 

TB. vice 4. vol. 1, p. 565, ed. Lond: 1829. ’ 

+ Euseb. De vita ‘Gonstanting: lib. iii cap. 60, 61, 62, appended to his Ecele. 
siastical History. Edit. Fol. Valesii, Paris, 1659, p. 516 "et seqq: 

{ See Canon xi in & good: translation | of -the whole in the Prot. Episcopalian 
for October, 1832, .p.. 381; % = 3 


tee ee 
at 


“ec 


al 


_witl S. 1S better settled by. the practice 
of the Church i in modern gia § oo to trouble you with parti- 
culars, T need only remind you how - common a thing it is at this 


day in England, for a Bishop to travel through two, three, or te 
s way to Lambeth ; pand © 
how frequent translations | are ‘in. the "venerable. ‘Church: of 


a half-dezen different Bishoprics, on his 


Scotland.|} On_ this subject. there cat be no. _ dispute. _ Now, 4 8 


how shall a Bishop be translated. to. a new see, = without 


previous resig nation of ‘the one he: held. before?” “Tt. may be ae 


objected tu me that the case ofa: translation — is. different 
from that of a resignation, because | the latter contemplates 
an entire relinquishment of jurisdiction, while the former does 
not. There is, indeed, so far.a difference ; but,” as to the princi- 
ple in question, they are precisely the same. The fact of a trans- 
lation requires a resignation, and establishes, i conceive, the 
principle for which Iam contending, that to resign a bishopric i 1S 
not to violate the principles of Ecclesiastical order, or the funda- 
mentals of Episcopacy, All this, it may be said, is mere infer- 
ence. Letus go, then, to more direct and unexceptionable proof. 
Now, it can be shewn,, that episcopal resignations have been prac-— 
tised and allowed i in all ages. Tn my examination of the historical 


% NP, a ei 


fA, 


ve Augustin. Epist, 261. 

f. Antiq. vol. 1, -p. 567. — me 

+ Milner states this fact in val. Se pedponn Fistory of the Chuck, and re- 
fers for authority to the 42 Epis. of ‘the first. Book of Gregory’s letters. I have 
not been able to find the fact in my copy of ‘Gregory’s works, (the black letter 
folio edition published at Paris in 1518,) in the place referred to by Milner. “I 
presume there is an inaccuracy in the reference, ‘or some ty POgEARMNee error, 
as the historian’s veracity does not admit of question. 

j Skinner’s Truth and Order, &c. reg = I, p. 342. 


£ 


~~ 


that the only difficulty i is, not tiem 
proper and Jucid pinereement and pr 


allowed to reste’ Pe hdee ey have wished to de so; and ¥ 
case in which a- resignation has been refused on the 4 . 
ple of the ‘measure’s being inconsistent with order, or with the g 


* _ know owledged practice ‘of the ‘Church. ~The objection has. alway 
ee been Eeeahire: personal: or: the Je alae k of the hers 


enemies aot the Ghirch: and Famtcalsidy for a ‘bold letter which ie 
wrote to. the Lord Treasurer remonstrating against the uncalled 
for interference of the Privy: Council in’ ecclesiastical matters. 
This ‘‘go0od bishop. of Ely,” as he i is well called by the annalist 
Strype,* who “had deserved passing well of learning and the 
Church,”’} ‘was a man of inflexible firmness of principle and 
of purpose, as a bishop ought | to be; and nothing daunted by the 
calumnies heaped upon: him, or the malice and machinations of his 
enemies, went on ifescl ety, and faithfully i in his duty. He tri- 
he cngnnutereds ‘he tendered his resignation | “ee the Queen. * The 
resignation indeed was: not accepted, but it was solely because no 


Ag 


suitable person) could be ‘induced t to. accept t the ges? ‘it Having been 


aes ‘Aninale of the Reformation, Bo, vol - art i, Bg ae: 1824— 
Anno 1574, ia 9 ; ae en ~ Fee = bj 


+ Id. p: 533. 


i7 


d by several.* But no objection was made to it on any 
‘other ground. Could a successor have been found to him, he 
would have been permitted to retire. But, as the Rev. gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, sitting before me, says to me in a whisper, 
Bishopricks were not caught atin those days with the avidity with 
which they are sought after now. Anda similar case occurred 
in the reign of William and Mary. Dr. Crew, Bishop of Dur- 
ham in the reign of King James II, absconded on the abdication 
of this monarch, in 1688, fearing the displeasure of the new king, 
in consequence of his unmanly compliances at the former court, 
in favouring popish practices. He was a very different man from 
the intrepid Bishop Cox. During his voluntary retreat, he of- 
fered to ‘‘compound for his offences by a resignation of his Bish- 
opric” in favour of Dr. Burnet. Dr. Burnet declined the offer; 
and Dr. Tillotson, then Dean of Canterbury, interceding for him, 
he was received into favour, and left in the enjoyment of the ho- 
nours of his see.t When Bishop Berkeley wished to resign the 
Bishopric of Cloyne, that he might remove to England to super- 
intend the education of his son at Oxford, his resignation was re- 
fused indeed—but it was not objected to upon the score of princi- 
ple, but solely upon personal grounds. Dr. Berkeley was the 
man for the see, and no one else so fit, and he must be its Bishop. 
So in the case of Eustathius, the aged Metropolitan of Pamphylia 
in the fifth century. He had resigned his see, thinking himself 
disabled by his years for its numerous duties. A successor, ‘Lheo- 
dore, was chosen in hisroom. The council of Ephesus condemn- 
ed the resignation as an uncalled for act, but did not set it aside 
or object on any other ground. The act finally received their 
sanction ; his successor was confirmed; and he was permitted to 
retain the title, the honours, and the functions, of a Bishop, and 
to officiate as such with the consent of his successor. ‘There may 
be cases of which I know nothisg, in which other resignations 
~have been refused, or objected to ;—and some in which possibly 


< 


* See Lives of the Compilers of the Lithrey: Re! by Downes, pa to Spar. 
row’s Rationale. Lond. 1722, p. 129, 


+ Burnet’s History of his own Times, vol. 1, p. 822. Also Birch’s Life of Arch 
bishop Tillotson, prefixed to his works, vol. 1 1, p. 99. Lond. ed. 1820. 
3 


is 


they have been objected to on the ground of their being at Vi 
ance with ecclesiastical order. But I have met with none su 
Whereas cases of allowed and sanctioned resignation are innu- 
merable. We may find in ecclesiastical writers that Bishops 
have resigned their sees, when disabled by sickness or by age; 
that sume have quietly yielded them to turbulent usurpers; that 
some have resigned to put an end to schisms and promote peace; 

that some have left their Bishoprics to devote themselves exclu- 
sively to devotion in the solitude of monasteries; that some 
have abdicated for conscience sake, because required to perform 
officially acts which they could not do with an honest conscience; 
and that a variety of considerations have influenced Bishops at 
different times, to retire from the offices they held. We have se- 
veral times heard, in the course of this debate, of the case of War- 
cissus, the venerable Bishop of Jerusalem, in the second century. 
Whateyer gentlemen may say against its bearing upon the matter 
in hand, it was a plain case of resignation. ‘The substance of his 
history, so far as it relates to the subject before us, and as I ga- 
ther it from Eusebius the historian,* is briefly this. Narcissus 
was accused of a grievous crime by some malicious persons, His 
guilt, although the charge was made under oath by three men, 
who imprecated upon themselves the heaviest divine judgments 
in case of perjury, was believed by nobody. He was, however, 
so affected by the infamous accusation, disbelieved as it was, that 
he resigned his episcopate, and lived in solitude and concealment 
several years. I do not know, because the historian does not say, 
that he resigned by any formal process, any written or verbal 
renga anmen of his bishopric. But he left it certatnly—d:adpas 
mew 5) Ths sxaancias wagtos,—and remained away from it along — 
‘time, During his absence, though it was known he was alive, 
three successive Bishops were appointed to the see, Dius, Ger- 
manius, and Gordius. During the Episcopate of Gordius, the | 
old Bishop suddenly returned fron his seclusion, to the great sur- 
mrise of all, and was solicited again to accept the government of | 
the Church he had left. I have already mentioned the case of | 
Eustathius, the Metropolitan of Pamphylia. .A number of simi- | 


* Euseb, Eccles. Hist. Lib. vi. cap. 9, 10, 11, p. 211 et seqq. 


19 


jar cases will be found in Bingham’s Antiquities,* the authority 
of which no one here will dispute. He tells us that Gregory Na- 
sianzen renounced the see of Constantinople, because the people 
were dissatisfied at his-being a stranger, and that the act was ap- 
proved of by the gencral council of Constantinople. This same 
Gregory Naxianxen had previously resigned his. situation as co- 
adjutor to his father in the diocese of Nazianzum. ‘He had ac- 
cepted the.office, under the express condition that he might retire 
on his father’s death,— which he accordingly did on that eyent.f 
The same antiquarian tells us of Meletius, who abandoned the 
diocese of Sebastia, in Armenia, because he was offended with the 
factious temper of his people. He tells us of Murtyrius, the Bishop 
of Antioch, who resigned his jurisdiction for the same reason. 
The great Chrysostom offered to quit his see ;t+—and Flavian, the 
Diocesan of Antioch, offered to do the same. All these, and 
others, may be seen in the high authority I have quoted. And 
from these facts he comes to the conclusion, that ‘‘it was lawful 
for men to renounce even the Episcopal office, and betake them- 
selves to a private life,”? when ‘ the benefit and edification of the 
Church” could thereby be promoted,|| We are told too by eccle- 
siastical historians, that Aurelius, the Bishop of Carthage, and 
Augustine, the famous Bishop cf Hippo, and almost all the rest 
of the prelates of Africa, made a proposition to the Donatist 
Bishops at, the Conference at Carthage, held in 411 by order of 
the Emperor Honorius, that in eyery diocese in which there were 
an orthodox and a Donatist Bishop, both should resign; and let 
another person be chosen, to heal the schism.§ But there is ano- 
ther instance to the point, which I have never seen referred to in 
any of the numerous dicussions of this question. It is that of Cle- 
ment, Bishop of Rome, the companion of the Apostle Paul, whose 
name that Apostle declared was ‘‘written in the Book of Life.” 


¢ B. 6, C. 4, s. 2, vol. 1, p. 555. 

{ Bingham, Book ii. ch, 13, sect. 4, vol. 1, p- 136. 

+ Homil. xi. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 4. Tom. iv. p. 1043. Edit. Paris. 1581. 
Fol. 


i B. vi. C. 4. S. 2 Pp: 561. Vs ]. 

§ An account of the material proceedings of this Conference, is given by Au- 
gustine in his Brevicuk Collationum cum Donatistis, which will be found in the 
6th volume of his works, Fol. Ed. Basle 11 vols. black letter, 1506. 


Pai) 


(Philipp. c. 4. vy. 8.) In his’ Epistle to the Corinthiats, a work 
which in early times, was read publickly in the Churches,* which 
was held in such high estimation, that, by some, it was even 
enumerated among the books of the sacred Canon,f of which the’ 
only Manuscript extant is in the same yolume, with the books 
of the New Testament,t which isso ancient, that it was writ- 
ten before the cessation of the Temple Service,|| and therefore 
during the life of the Apostle John, and which has been pronounc- 
ed ‘fone of the noblest monuments which the Church has after 
the Holy Scriptures,’’6 trnly ‘* becoming an Apostolical age,’ 
and a “blessing to our present times;” that ancient father lays it 
down as a rule, that every station in the church should be re- 
linquished to put an end to clamour, and procure peace.* 

Having referred to the acts of those fathers, let me ask whe- 
ther itis to be believed that they would have done what was not 
consistent with ecclesiastical order, and with the practice of the 
Church; and whether it is to be supposed for a moment, that they, 
and especially that Clement, the Apostle’s pupil and companion, 
and himself so high an authority that he was by some styled an 
Apostle,t could have been ignorant of what were the true and es- 
sential principles of Episcopacy ? 

To come down to later times, and to the practice of the Church 
of England, with which we are so immediately connected, and the 
principles and usages of which we profess to love, to revere, and 
to follow. In the reign of Henry VIII (Anno 1539,) there was 
passed the famous “ Six-Article Act,’ or ‘* the Bloody Statute” 
as it was well called, which sentenced to burning or hanging any 
one who should deny transubstantiation, maintain the necessity of 
communion in both kinds, defend the marriage of priests, say 
that vows of chastity were not binding, that private masses were 
unprofitable, or that auricular confession was not necessary to 


* Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3 Cap. 16. Ed. Valesii Paris. 1659, p. 88. 

ft It is enumerated among them in the last of the Apostolical Canons. 

+ Archbishop Wake’s Apostolic Fathers, p. 11, Ed. N. ¥Y. 1810. — 

| Clem, ad. Cor. C. 41. 

§ Dupin, Hist. of Eccles. Writers, &c. vol 1. Art. Clement. 

{ Abp. Wake’s Apostolical Fathers, &c, p.16, p. 22. 

* Epist. Clement. Sec. 54. 

t He is called * the Apostle Clement’? by Clement of Alexandria. Stromata, 
lib. 4, p. 516 a. ed. gr. et lat. Paris, 1641. 


21 


wy g 


salvation.* ‘To this atrocious act, there was great opposition 
made by Archbishop Cranmer in open Parliament, and by other 
influential prelates. But it passed into a law ; and, in their dis— 
pleasure, two of the Bishops, Shaaton, Bishop of Salisbury, and 
the celebrated Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, resigned their sees. 
Now did not these worthy and distinguished men, and Bishop 
Latimer especially, one of the lights of the Reformation, under- 
stand ecclesiastical order, and know what was the practice of 
Episcopal Churches?+ Subsequently, on the death of Edward VI. 
and the accession of his sister Mary, several of the Protestant 
Bishops retired from their sees to avvid the fury of the Papists, 
and among them Bishop Barlow, who afterwards, with Bishops 
Coverdale and Scory, consecrated Archbishop Parker. And 
again, on her decease, and the accession of Elizabeth, who fa- 
voured the reformation, Bishops who retained their popish preju- 
dices, did the same. The particulars may be seen in Burnet’s 
History of the Reformation, and are fully given by the Annalist 
Strype. Every one must recollect, when L advert to the case, 
the resignation of Archbishop Leighton, in the days ef Char les II. 
a determination to which he came, as we are told by his biogra- 
pher. Pearson, and indeed by himself, after long reflection, and a 
thorough examination of the lawfulness of the measure. Bishop 
Burnet says that Archbishop Leighton ‘had gathered many in- 
stances out of Church history of Bishops who had left their sees.”’£ 
Any one who will take the trouble, may find many similar cases 
in the past history of the English Church. Among the most re- 
markable instances, we find that of Cuthbert,§ Bishop of Lindis- 
fern, an island on the coast of Northumberland, in the 7th cen- 
tury; that of John,|| Bishop of York in the 8th century, known in 
history as St. John of Beverly, being Abbot of the Monastery 
‘there, and being canonized, who A carenied in the year 721, and | 


* Baker’s Chronicle, &c. p. 315, Lond. ed. fol. 1660. 
. ¢ For these facts, consult Rapin’s Hist. Eng. vol. 1, p. 821, 823. Burnet’s Hist. 
of Ref. vol. 1, p. 205 and 308. Collier’s Ecclesiastical Hist. p. 211, and Strype’s 
Life of Archbishop Cranmer. 

+ Hist. of His own Times, v. 1, p. 342. 

§ Rapin’s Hist. of Eng. vol. 1, p. 73, p. 482. 

fId. v. 1, p. 74. Collier’s Eccles. Hist. p. 123. 


i222 
retired into monastic seclusion ; that of Robert Kilwarthy,* Arche 
bishop of Canterbury in the 10th century, who resigned his see 
to live at Rome, being made a Cardinal; that of Archbishop Lang- 
Aum,t in the 14th century; that of Bishop Shirburnet in the 16th 
century; and that of Dr. Reps, Bishop of Norwich, in the reign of 
Edward VI. who was persuaded to resign to make room for the 
promotion to that see of Dr. Thirlby.|} And these are only a few 
hastily gleaned from among many ancient precedents. And 
in our own times, within a very few years, Bishop Stansur, of 
Nova Scotia, abdicated that see, and was succeeded by the pre- 
sent incumbent, Dr. Inglis. And still later, Bishop James, the 
successor of Bishop Heber, after a short residence in India, re- 
signed his situation in consequence of broken health, and was re- 
turning home when he died. His, resignation was accepted, and 
asuccessor actually appointed before the intelligence of his de~ 
cease had arrived in England. No one dreamed that his abdi- 
cation was improper in any sense. Indeed, not only is theaprac- 
tice allowed, but there is a special act of Parliament which gives 
to the Bishops sent out to occupy the see of Calcutta, the privi- 
lege of resigning, and returning home upon a pension of £1500 
per annum, after a service of 15 years in India. [fam not quite 
sure, but belicve, that a like provision is made for the retirement 
of the Bishops sent to the West Indies, after a ten years’ service 
there. Indsed I cannot discover that Episcopal resignations 
have ever been disallowed, or even disapproved of, in the Eng— 
lish Church. All the facts I have been able to gather on this sub- 
ject, prove directly the reverse to have been the case. When 
Wilfred, Bishop of Leicester, in the reign of Ethelred in the be- 
ginning of the 8th century, was accused before a council convened 
upon his case, he was absolutely advised by his brethren to retire; 
and the Bishops endeavored by entreaties and threats to induce him 
to resign the Bishopric of his ownaccord.§ We are told by Bishop 
Burnet, that Arehbishop Tillotson accepted the primacy with the 
fixed, ayowed, and known, intention to retire from it, whenever 
circumstances should allow him to do so, or the infirmities of age 


“Id. vol. 1, p. 354. ° ¢ Collier’s ibe eee p- 561. ¢ Id. p- 130. 
} Burnet’s History of Reform, vol. 2, p. 
§ Re: s Hist. spt vol. 1, p. 73, 


23 


should overtake him.* So much for the practice of the English 
Church. 

As to the views and practice of the Church of Rome, they are 
fully in accordance with those of the other branches of the church 
to which I have referred you. ‘To say nothing of the innumera- 
ble cases of the resignation of ordinary bishops which its history 
furnishes, it is notorious that even the very heads of the church 
haye abdicated the papacy. I have no doubt that I could make 
out a long list of Popes who have withdrawn from their office. — 
All must recollect that in the 11th century, Gregory VI resign- 
ed, Gregory VII (the famous Hildebrand,) resigned, and Victor 
Ill resigned; and inthe 13th century the amiable and_ pious 
Celestine V resigned. I cannot find that the lawfulness of 
Episcopal resignations has ever been even questioned or suspect- 
ed by its divines; and there is a remarkable incident in its histo- 
ry which I must beg leave to recall to your recollection, because 
it fully sustains the views Iam defending, so far at least as its 
authority can go. You remember that, in the 15th century, the 
Latin church was distracted and torn by violent contentions re- 
specting the claims of rival Popes. In the beginning of that 
century, there were two rivals, both claiming to be Pontiffs,— 
Bonifiace IX, who resided at Rome, and Benedict XIII at 
Avignon. Boniface dying, there was elected a successor who 
took the name of Innocent VIE ; and he dying very soon was suc— 
ceeded by Gregory XII. A council held at Pisa in 1409 de- 
nounced them all, and appointed Alexander V. Sovereign Pontiff. 
But Benedict and Gregory spurned the decree of the council, 
and still claimed the Pontificate. So that there were now three 
Popes,—Benedict XIII, Gregory XII, and Alexander V. Alex- 
ander died the following year, and was succeeded by John XXIII. 
so that there still remained three Popes, all fiercely condemning 
each other, and strenuously claiming the Popedom. ‘This shame- 
ful state of things excited the horror and disgust of all Europe; 
and a council was called at Constance in the year 1414, at the 
instance of the German Emperor Sigismund, to terminate these 
broils. The council removed Jolin, on account of his notorious 


*Bornet’s Funeral Sermon at his death, p. 24, And Birch’s Life of him p. 162. 


SA 


crimes, and among other reasons, because he had not redeemed 
a pledge he had made to the council to resign the Pontificate.— 
Gregory voluntarily resigned; and Benedict was deprived by the 
decree of the council. . Benedict however still resisted until hts 
death, which occurred six years after; and a Spaniard, who as— 
sumed the title of Clement VIII, succeeded him, by the election 
of avery few cardinals. Clement at last, in the year 1429, was 
prevailed upon to resign the Church entirely to Martin V, whom 
the council of Constance had elected after the deprivation of Ben- 
edict and John, and the resignation of Gregory. And thus the 
scandalous contest was -brought to anend. But in this singular 
piece of history, we have the noticeable facts, that there were no 
less than two resignations of the bishopric of Rome;* that one of 
the Pontiffs promised+ the council to resign, though he did not 
keep his word; and that twot of them actually pledged them- 
selves under oath, to do so, should the interests of the Church 
require such a measure. 

These are scandalous facts, which F should never have men- 
tioned here, but for the bearing of some of them upon the point in 
hand, But shameful as were the proceedings to which I have 
~-adverted, in no historian or ecclesiastical writer that 1 have ever 
read, have Iseen Gregory or Clement censured for resigning, or 
tbe others for promising to resign. ‘This was never reckoned 
among their faults by any one. Nor did the great council of Con- 
stance, the fame of which drew together 18,000 ecclesiasties, and 
many thousand laymen of learning and distinction, ever raise a 
question, or insinuate a doubt respecting the lawfulness of resig- 
nations. That a bishop could resign was a point taken for grant- 
ed, and universally received then. I verily believe that it has 
never been seriously called in question in any age, orin any church 
but our own. -And the more I think of it, the more I am surpris- 
ed, that it should be necessary to debate it in this body. 

But the facts I have adduced from the history of the Romish 
Church, may possibly have little force in the view of some, be- 
cause they are furnished by what we are accustomed to consider 
and tocall a corrupt part of christendom. More than once in this 


*Grogory XIL& Clement VUE. tJohn XXIII. +Benedict XIN & Gregory XI. 


25 
debate have we witnessed the attempt to prejudice the minds of 
the members of this house, by what I must call the illiberal and un- 
just cry of ‘“Popery.”? The ‘judicious Hooker’? speaks of some 
in his day, who “ measured religion by dislike of the Church of 
Rome, and thought every man so much the more sound, by how 
much he could make the corruptions thereof to seem large.’”’* I 
must tell my reverend brother who has so eloquently appealed to 
the prejudices and the pride -of those of us especially who with 
himself boast of having in their veins the hlood of the Huguenots, 
that such was not the spirit of his sires. I trust it will never be 
the temper of their descendants. A more liberal spirit becomes 
those who can claim so holy and illustrious an ancestry, With 
ereat propriety and wisdom does the Church call upon us every 
day of our session, in the beautiful collect she has provided for 
the purpose, to pray that we may be saved from ‘‘pride and pre- 
judice.”” And considering how apt the very best of men are to 
be insensibly swayed by such influences even in an august body 
like this,t I am grieved to hear any thing that looks like an ap- 
peal to such feelings. And what have our just objections to po- 
pery, or our inherited prejudices against it, to du with this ques- 
tion? At any rate, even though the facts I have mentioned should 
not prove that episcopal resignations are not at variance with the 
essential principles of episcopacy, they do shew most clearly that 
there never was a declaration less accurate, or mere entirely des- 
titute of proof, than that which has so often been quoted to us in 
this discussion as coming from high authority, that an epispocal 
resignation is not consistent ‘‘with the practice of episcopal church- 
esin any ages!” If these facts from the history of the Romish 
Church are to pass for nothing, I presume that those which have 
been presented from the practice of early ages, and from the his- 
tory of the Church of England, will not be considered of no ac- 
count. Iam willing to rest the question upon them; and to leave 
the others entirely out of view. I might adduce to you other cases 
of Episcopal resignation, in other branches of the Church, as that 


* Ecclesiastical Polity, B. 4, s. 8, vol. 2, p. 359. Ed. Lon. 1825. 


{ See the various motives by which the members of ecclesiastical councils may 
be influenced, in Dr, Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, p. 185. 


4 


So 
of Bishop Campbell of Aberdeen, who resigned that. see in 1724,¥ 
and that of the Swedish Prelate Matthie,} Bishop of Strengnes, in 
the 17th century; but I have already been tediously minute, I 
fear, and 1 think additional facts must be unnecessary. The fact 
is established, that Episcopal resignations are not inconsistent 
with ecclesiastical order, and do not violate the practice of the 
Church; and are, therefore, not at variance with the essential 
principles of Episcopacy. I must. again express my surprise, 
that such positions should. ever have been maintained a moment, 
in contradiction to all history. The cases I have adduced are not 
merely a few isolated instances, regarded. by the Church as irre- 
gular proceedings, and tolerated only as exceptions. It is unde- 
niable that standard writers on ecclesiastical law, unequivocally 
| recognise the principle that a Bishop may resign, and discuss and 
-explain the circumstances and manner in which the act is to be 
done. I have the authorities at hand, should any one require 


them ; but otherwise, shall do nothing more than refer for satis-_ 
faction on this point, to Bishop Gibson’s Codex Juris Eccles. | 
Ang. v. 1, passim; Lord.Coke upon Littleton, $29; Judge Black- © 
stone’s Commentaries, 1, 582; and especially to Dr. Burns’ Ec- 


clesiastical Law, v. iii. p. 321, title “Resignation.” 


mt think I have not failed to shew, as I proposed to do, that | 


Episcopal resignations have been practised and allowed in all 
ages, and that, consequently the resignation of a Bishop does not 


conflict with ecclesiastical order, or contravene the essential prin- | 


ciples of Kxpiscopacy. 

If it has been proved, as I trust it has, that there is no canon law 
which prohibits such a measure, nothing repugnant to the tenor 
‘and spirit of the office of consecration, no law of understanding 
which binds for life a Bishop to his see, and no variance with the 


essential principles of Episcopacy, it follows that a Bishop may) 
lawfully resign the jurisdiction of his diocese. ‘This being ascer-| 
tained, no exception can be taken upon these grounds to the act/of| 
Bishop Chase; and there is certainly, and was at the time of Dr. 


Mcllvaine’s election, a true yAcANCY in the Bishopric of Ohio, 


* See Appendix No. 1. to Skinner’s Primitive Truth and Order, p. 342, N. ¥. 
1808. | 


{ Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist. vol, 4, p. 13. 


yf 


To the objection made by those who contend that the resigna- 
tion ought to have been tendered to the house of Bishops, or to this 
body, and that the Diocesan Convention of Ohio was not compe- 
tent to receive it, f can hardly think I need reply. It is for them 
fo prove, that the Church requires a resignation to be presented 
to the House of Bishops, or to the General Conyention ; and that 
the body from which Bishop Chase received his jurisdiction, which 
was also the only body by which it could be conferred, had no au- 
thority to receive back what it gave, when tendered to them by 
him. ‘This has not been proved—it has merely been asserted, or 
suggested, And proved, I am sure, it never can be, or it wonld 
already have beeu established in this debate by the learning, the 
ingenuity, and the eloquence, which have been arrayed against the 
Report of the Joint Committee. Indeed, if the gentlemen were 
pushed a little, I suspect they would find it yegy diflicult to as- 
sign any competent reason, why a Bishop’s resignation would not 
be a sufficient and valid act, by the mere fact that it is the exer- 
cise of his own will and purpose, and independently of its accep- 
tance or approval by the bedy to which it is delivered, or any 
other authority whatever, But I Jeave this objection to itself, until 
it be sustained by something besides the opinions of those who 
have advanced it. 

To the vacant Bishopric of Ohio, vacated by a lawful act of its 
late Bishop, Dr. McIlvaine has been called by the vote of its Con- 
vention. Ido not see that we are authorised by the canons, un- 
der these circumstances, to devise means to restore Bishop Chase, 
to reconcile the differences between him and the Diocese from 
which he has severed himself by his own act, or to entertain any 
question but the immediate consecration of the gentleman chosen 
his successor. We are competent, I conceive, to do nothing else 
in the case, but the plain duty committed to us by the canons. “I 
trust, therefore, that this House will accede to the Report of the 
Joint Committee; that we may at once proceed to sigu the docu- 
ment which will recommend the Bishop elect to our venerable fa- 
thers, for admission to the high and holy office which they fill. 

\ 


Mr. PresipENT,— When I addressed you the other day on 
the subject now in debate, I was both unable and unwilling to oc- 
-cupy you long. I had been several days confined to my room by | 
an attack of fever, which came upon me while attending the house, 
and was, consequently, unable to sustain a long effort. And the 
debate had heen already protracted to so great a length, that I pre- 
ferred omitting some things which I had wished and intended to 
say, rather than to fatigue the patience of the house by a long 
speech. But I am called upon by the attack which has been made 
upon a part of my remarks by my reverend friend from Pennsyl- 
vania, (Dr. Delancey,) to address you again in self-vindication: 
After a brief reply to him, [shall avail myself of the opportunity 
of saying a few words on some points which I had neither time, 
nor direct and pfper occasion, to touch in my previous observa- 

tions. 

You will recollect, Sir, that I adduced the high authority of 
Clement of Rome, in favour of Episcopal resignations; and re- 
ferred to a passage of his famous epistle to the Corinthians as lay- 
ing down a principle favourable to the position I was defending. 
The reverend gentleman acknowledges that when he heard the au- 
thority of Clement adduced against him, he felt that his cause 
was gone. In the course of the observations he addressed to you, 
he felt it to be necessary, therefore, to weaken the force of the 
authority adduced by me; and reading a solitary sentence from 
Clement’s epistle, severed from its connexion with the whole pas- 
sage to which it belongs, exulted no little in my imagined dis— 
comfiture, and declared that Clement said no such thing as I had 
made him say. He made himself somewhat merry too at my ex- 
pense, and rallied me a little upon my haying hit upon this ‘sleepy 
case,’ as he was pleased to call it, * late at night,”’ when exhaust- 
ed with the labour of study. Even had he vanquished me upon 
this point, I do not see that he had much cause to triumph, since 
he did not venture to call in question a solitary fact besides, out 

~ of the many I had stated. For surely a besieging enemy who for- 
tunately dismounts one of the guns of a fortress, does not triumph 
as though he had stormed the ramparts, carried them by assault, 


29 


and put the whole Rarrison to the sword, But he has not gained 
the least advantage even here. My friend was correct in his con- 
jecture that I had studied this case “at night.” Ihave not the 
good fortune to have the learned leisure which he enjoys in 80 en- 
viable a degree ; nor is it my privilege to possess, as he does, thie 
“‘ otium cum dignitate.”’ Amid the cares and labours which come 
upon me from my pastoral connexion with an extensive congre— 
gation, I find myself often compelled to study “at night,’”’ because 
I have little time for study in the day. But he wasentirely wrong 
in supposing that I was oppressed with any tendency to “sleep,” 
in my investigation of the case in question. I confess, I can some- 
times sleep under a long speech, and even under a dull sermon; 
and I do not know that this is wrong. ‘ Opere in longo, fas est 
obrepere somnum.” But I have never yet found myself inclined 
to sleep over a volume of the fathers; and I hope that what he 
has been led to suspect of me, has not been suggested to him as 
probable, by his own experience. Iam convinced, that if the fa- 
thers were less slept over than they are, and were not permitted 
to sleep as they so often do upon our shelves, we should have de— 
cided the question before us long ago, because we should have un- 
derstood it better. But to the authority of Clement. Let any 
one read the whole passage referred to by me, and not the single 
dismembered sentence which the gentleman has selected, and it 
will be plain that I am fully sustained by the authority of that an- 
cient Father. It is exceedingly unfair to take a single isolated 
sentence of an author, and force it to speak a language, which, 
viewed in connexion with its context, it does not speak. At any 
rate, I recollect that I was taught by Dr. Turner, when pursuing 
my theological studies, always to consider the context and the 
scope of a passage to ascertain its meaning, Now let me read to 
you the unmutilated passage as it stands in Archbiskop Wake’s 
translation. 
‘© Who is there among you that is generous? Who that is com- 
passionate? Who that has any charity? Let him say, if this se- 
dition, this contention and these schisms, be upon my account, f 
am ready to depart; to go away whithersoever ye please; and do 
- whatsoever ye shall command me: only let the flock of Christ be 
__in peace, with the elders that are set over it. He that shall do this,. 


SO 


shall get to himself a very great honour in thé Lord; and there 
is no place but what will be ready to receive him: for the earth és 
the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. (Vsalm xxiv.) ‘These things 
they who have their conversation towards God not to be repented 
of, both have done, and will always be ready to do. | 

«« Nay, and even the Gentiles themselves have given us exam— 
ples of this kind. For we read, how many kings and princes, in 
times of pestilence, being warned by their oracles, haye given up 
themselves unto death; that by their own blood, they might deli- 
ver their country from destruction. Others have forsaken their 
cities, that so they might put an end to the seditions of atl 
Clement. Ep. ad Corinth. sec. 54, 55, p. 178. 

T submit it without comment—All must see that I am sustained 
by the high authority which my friend acknowledged was suffi- 
cient to overturn his cause. 

I am glad that the reverend gentleman has given me this op- 
portunity to place the authority of Clement in a still stronger 
light. Now, Sir, Iam able to shew, that this ancient Bishop 
has actually afforded us a precedent for Episcopal resignations, 
by his own example. ‘The early history of the Church at Rome, 
and of its first Bishops in particular, is involved in some obscurity. 
Its records are not as full as we might desire, because, to believe, 
to love, to suffer, and to die,—not to write, was the primitive taste. 
But we have historical records from which the following facts 
may be gathered. Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, were all invest- 
ted with the Episcopal office, by the Apostles Peter and Paul; and 
left at Rome to supply their places during their absence, Clement 
being designed to be their permanent successor. But, practising 
the rule which he lays down in his truly admirable epistle, he re- 
nounced the episcopate of Rome, and refused to execute that office 
till he was obliged to assume it after the death of both Linus and 
Anacletus. He thus remained upwards of twenty years, without 
exercising jurisdiction over the Church of which he had been 
made Bishop by Apostolic designation, that no difficulties should 
arise on his account. A very full detail of these facts may be 
seen in the 2d volume of Tillemont’s “ Ecclesiastical Memoirs of i 
the six First Centuries,” in the very minute account which he gives “ 
there of St. Clement. And there may be seen the references to ie 


oi 


the original authorities upon which they rest.¢ Substantially the 
same account is given by Calmet in his Dictionary of the Bible, 
under the article Clement. 

So far, then, as the authority of Clement goes, the pr packs of 
Episcopal resignations is fully established. I must again thank + 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the opportunity he has made 
for me to exhibit itthus fully. And as he has himself said that 
it would be sufficient to put down his cause, I trust we shall re- 
ceive from him at least no further opposition. Iam sure he must 
now be convinced that Clement is against him. 

From the turn this debate has taken, it is evident that the issue 
of the matter before us depends mainly upon the settlement of the 
question of Episcopal resignations. I do not intend to trouble 
you with the repetition of what has already been said upon that 
point by myself or others. But there is one fact which has been 
almost entirely overlooked in this discussion, although it has a 
most important bearing upon the subject under debate; and it is 
that a precedent for Episcopal resignations has been established in | 
‘our own Church. This, I think, can easily be shewn. In the year 
1801, Bishop Provoost, the then Bishop of New York, verbally re- 
signed his episcopal jurisdiction of that diocese, in open Conyen- 
tion then assembled. ‘The Convention, not indeed in terms, but 
by acts of the most unequivocal meaning, accepted his resigna— 
tion, or rather, concurred in his abdication; and elected Dr. Ben- 
jamin Moore to succecd him. A few days after this election, the 
‘General Convention assembled at Trenton, and Dr. Moore was 
consecrated. ‘The house of Bishops, consisting of Bishop White, 
Bishop Claggett, and Bishop Jarvis, expressed their opinion that 
the resignation of Bishop Provoost was not ‘consistent with ec- 
clesiastical order, or with the practice of Episcopal Churches in ~ 
any ages, or with the tenor. of the office of consecration ;” and re- 
fused **to recognise the Bishop’s act as an effectual resignation 
of his Episcopal jurisdiction.” Nevertheless they agreed to con- 
‘secrate Dr. Moore, stating that they should consider him as ‘*as- 
eestane or coadjutor during Bishop Provoost’s life.” ‘The lower house 


hy © The copy of Tillemont which I have used, is the English translation, publish. 
a ee in folio at London in 1733. The place is at pp. 116—121, vol. 2. 


es ‘ 


expressed no Opinion in the matter: the Bishops did not ask them 
to do so, and, therefore, they could not, with delicacy or deco- 
rum, obtrude their sentiments. But they proceeded to sign Dr. 
‘Moore’s testimonials,—upon which he was consecrated. He re- 
turned to New York, took the Episcopal superintendence of the 
diocese, and remained ten years in undisputed possession of Dio- 
cesan authority. There was not one solitary official act in any 
section of the Church, for ten years, which went to cast a suspi- 
cion upon his claim to be the principal Bishop of New York ; but, 


on the contrary, he was universally recognised in that character, 


privately and officially. In the lists of clergy appended to the 
Journals of the General Convention from the session of 1801 on- 
wards, he was always marked as the Bishop of New York, and 
Bishop Provoost never. In the Journal of 1801, Bishop Provoost 
is put down at the end of the clergy of New York, as ‘residing 
in New York.” In the lists of 1804 and 1808, his name occurs 
merely in alphabetical order among the clergy of New York. In 
the list of 1811, he is placed at the head of the catalogue, with 
the title of “‘ Bishop,” which is also given to Bishop Mcore im- 
mediately after, and also to Bishop Hobart. In the list of 1814, 
Bishop Provoost’s name is put at the head, with no title but ** Rt. 
Rey.” and “D. D.” Bishop Moore’s follows, marked as “Bishop,” 
and Bishop Hobart’s next, as * Assistant Bishop.’”’ This last en- 
try is particularly worthy of notice. Nor are these lists mere 
informal acts of the Secretaries under whose direction the jour- 
nals were published,—and for which they alone are responsible, 
They are lists declared to be officially ‘* delivered in and publish- 
ed agreeably to the Canons.’’ ‘And we do not find that the Secre- 
taries were ever called to account for falsifying the lists of the 
clergy, or accused or suspected of any misrepresentation of the 
truth in any one respect. ‘These, then, are officially sanctioned 
catalogues of the clergy, and a part of the public, authenticated 
records of the Church. I repeat it, then, the fact that Bishop 
Moore was Diocesan of New York, was acquiesced in every where 
in this country ;—and there was not one proceeding which went 
to impugn his authority for more than ten years. In the year 1812, 
however, Bishop Proyoost, in a written communication to the Con- 


vention of New York, and by another document addressed toa _ 


in a ¥ . te 
AB Dy iG 


% sty Ant i 33 


¥ ah 
Pes 


presbyter of that: diocese, cama; and proposed to resume, ju- 
-risdiction over the. Church in that State, The Convention passe » 
ed a spirited protest against any such right on his parts and des — 


clared that they acknowledged Bishop Moore, and ‘no Other 


person, to be their true and lawful Diocesan Bishop.”’? Here the 
whole matter ended. Bishop Proveost never urged his claim any 
further ;—the General Convention never interfered to establish 
“it;—even the house of Bishops, who had declared in 1801, that 
his resignation was not ‘effectual,’ never even adverted to the 
business. But all parties seemed to acquiesce in the propriety of 
the resolution passed by the New York Convention of 1812, and 
to recognise Bishop Moore, and * no other person, as their true 
ayd lawful Diocesan Bishop.” And let it be particularly remark- 
ed, that in 1814, even after Bishop Provoost had claimed, and 
offered to resume, the jurisdiction of New York,—his name was 
entered upon the list of the clergy merely as the “Rt. Reverend 
Samuel Provoost, D. D.;” and that Bishop Moore was put down 
immediately after him as * Bishop.”’. Even those who afterwards 
disputed Bishop Moore’s Diocesan character, and claimed it for 
Bishop Provoost, never took this ground, until more than. ten 
years after the resignation of the latter, and after Bishop Moore 
had been consecrated. Here, then, is a settled case—a precedent 
fully established in our own Chourch,—from which it clearly ap- 
pears, that fur more than thirty years, it has been the sense of the 
Church in the United States, that a Bishop may resign, and 
that there may be a Bishop without a jurisdiction. Indeed; the 
very Bishops who objected to Bishop Provoost’s Hemonau ott, seem 
to have receded from the ground they took at first:—for in the 
letter of consecration which they gave to Bishop Moore, dated 
Atth September 1801, the very day after their decision, they say 
that they had consecrated him “into the office of Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York.” They 
declare also in the same document, that he was elected to that 
office by the Convention of New York, *¢in consequence of the in- 
ability of Bishop Provoost. and of his declining all Episcopal ju- 
risdiction within the said State.” Herc, then, I contend, isa sete 
tled case—a precedent fully established in the Church in the 


United States, that a Bishop may resign, and that there may be a 
3 


jg 
At ye a 
aes 


Bishop without a diocese. And, even more recently than this, 
the Bishop of the Eastern Diocese, with a magnanimity and dis- 
interestedness truly deserving admiration, has, without the least 
opposition, or even a murmur of disapprobation, resigned his ju- 
risdiction over Vermont. All bave acquiesced in the lawfulness 
and propriety of the measure; and the Reverend gentlemadelect- 
ed to succeed him, will, uo doubt, be unanimously recommended 
by the house for consecration. I confess I am not so keen sight- 
ed as to discover, what there is to prevent a Bishop's resigning 
his whole diocese, when, without the least suspicion of improprie- 
ty, he may resign a part. 

Before I end these protracted remarks, I must say a few words 
on another point, which has been made a prominent one in this 
matter. Inthe private and public discussions to which the resig- 
nation of Bishop Chase has given rise, it has been very generally 
conceded by those who disapprove the proceedings of the Church 
in Ohio, that their objections to Dr. McIlvaine’s consecration as 
his successor, are founded chiefly upon the ineapediency of the 
measure. Much has been conjectured by the alarmed imagina— 
tions of some, as to the evils which may result from it to the future 
peace of the Church; and in proof of its expediency, a great deal 
has been said about the anomalous and inadmissible character of a 
‘‘ BISHOP AT LARGE,” which the resigned Bishop must necessarily 
be, should the General Convention agree to the consecration of 
the proposed Bishop elect. That there ought not to be “ Bishops 
at large” in the Church, in this country at least, | am ready to 
grant; and Iyhope that measures may be at once taken to prevent 
_ the existence of any such characters in future among us. Indeed, 
I am utterly opposed to rambling ecclesiastics of every grade; 
and heartily wish that some such laws as existed in the ancient 
Church against the Caxevz-Cor, were in force now to restrain the 
roving propensities of itinerant clerks. And then the “runagates” 
would ** continue in scarceness.”— It is certainly not desirable to 
have among us * Bishops-at large.” But, that a Bishop at large 
is an anomaly in the Church, is as clearly contrary to historical 
facts, as the assertion that a Bishap has never lawfully resigned. 

Beyond a doubt.there were * Bishops at large,” that is, Bishops 
without dioceses, and exercising no local jurisdiction, in the early 


aad 


Church, It was no uncommon case for coadjutor Bishops to be 
chosen, with the distinct proviso that their authority was to cease 
on the demise of the diocesans they were elected to assist. Al- 
though this has often been denied, it is distinctly said by the his- 
torians, that Gregory Nazianzen accepted the office of coadjutor 
to his father, the Bishop of Nazianzum, on the express condition 
that he might resign on his death ; and that he actually did resign 
on that event, retired to Seleucia, and remained several years in 
private life.* And Bishop Gibson, a standard authority on all 
matters of ecclesiastical law, declares, that a coadjutor was ‘at 
first” given to a WWshop, “in order to succeed him; but in later | 
times, only to be an assistant during life.t’? Every such assistant 
Bishop became, of course, a *‘ Bishop at large,” on the demise of 
his principal; and so remained until chosen to succeed him, or 
appointed to another see. It is hardly to be supposed that they 
were all thus imvested immediately with a new jurisdiction. In 
the case of Gregory, which | have already mentioned, he remain- 
el sume time in private life. And what but Bishops at large,’? 
were the oyeadio: or eyord Corres extoxowe:, * vacant Bishops,” men- 
tioned by ancient ecclesiastical writers, and for whose case the 
Apostolical Canons and the council of Antioch made provision, 
declaring that, though refused by the people for whom they were 
consecrated, they should still be Bishops?t What were the Vul- 
latenenses of subsequent times? And what shall be said of those 
who in the ancient Church were ordained expressly #xroacavpevan, 
to be confined to no particular district?) That such Bishops were 
consecrated in ancient times, can admit of ‘no qifstion. ~ Such 
certainly must have been all those who were appointed Bishops 
fur heathen lands; and for whose ordination at Constantinople, 
the council of Chalcedon passed a special canon. I dare say the 
case of Frumentius, whose singular history and pious labours 
lave given so much interest to his name,|| is remembered by most 


* See Cave’s Historia Literaria, &c.—Art, Greg. Naz. 

t See Gibson’s Codex Juris Eccl<slastic: Anglicani, v. 1, p. 158. 

$+ The 29 h Apostolical Canon, and the 18:h Canon of the Council of Antioch, 
which reter to these rejected Bishops, ale nearly in the same words, and are 
both very clear on this subject. 
| | See an sccount of him in Milner’s History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 80. See 
also Semler’s Hist. Eccles. Selecta Capita, y. 1, p. 116. 


of those who hear me; and that it will be recollected that he was” 
consecrated by the celebrated Athanasius of Alexandria, as a mis- 
sionary Bishop to the barbarous region of Abyssinie, where there 
was no regular Christian Church, and where certainly there could” 
then have been no diocese. Sometimes, indeed, Bishops were cone 
secrated without any intention that they should have any episco- 
pal charge at all. Such was the case in the instances related by” 
Bingham out of Zozomen the historian, of Barses and Eulogins, 
who were made honorary Bishops at Edessa, as a reward for their 
eiminent virtues.* 3 C 

Nor are ‘Bishops at large’ unknown 22 the’ Bhureh of England. 
It is an unquestionable fact, that many of its Bishops have at dif- 
ferent periods resigned, They did not lay aside the spiritual cha- 
racter of their office, (that is unalienable and indelible.)—they. 
gave up their jurisdiction. What were they then but “ Bishops 
at large?” What else were the numerous Bishops who were * de- 
prived’’ in the successive reigns of Edward VL, Mary.f and Eli- 
zabeth st and the nen-jurors|| who were ejected on the accession 
of King William IIL?) It surely will not be preteaded that they 
thereby lost their episcopal character—they lost nothing but their 
jurisdiction. As Dean Prideaux justly says, the Bishops that 
were deprived, lad still their Episcopal office left entire to them ; 
they being as much Bishops of the Church Universal after their 
deprivation, as they were before.§ For, as Archdeacon Daubeny 
says, in relation to this very point, “aman may still be a true 
Bishop, whether he has or has not any particular district, over 
which he is Djthorized to preside.’ And what is it contemplated 
the Bishops ef Calcutta are to be, when they shall have perform- 
ed their period of service in India, but Bishops at large? They 


* Bingham, Antiq. book iv. c. vi, s. 3. vol. 1. p. 393- 

T Mary ejected siz Bishops for adhering to the Protestant cause. 

+ Fourteen Popish Bishops were compelled by Elizabeth to retire. See Strype’s 
Annals of the Reformation, &ec. vol. VN part 1, page 209, Ed. Lond. 1824. Also, 
Baker’s Chronicle, p. 351, 

i Seven Bishops, besides Archbishop Sancroft, were then removed from their 
offices; and all the Scotch Bishops, refusing to take the oath of allegiance, exe 
perienced the same discipline. 

§ Prideaux’s Old and New Testaments connected, &c. Part 2, book 3, vol. 3, 
p- 223. kd. Charlestown, 1816. 


q Appendix to Daubeny’s Guide to the Church, in answer to Sir Richard Hill 
Load. 1799. 


37 

may, indeed, on their return, be honoured with secs at home; but 
that is no part of the law by which the see of Calcutta has been 
created, nor is it the understanding. Indeed it is plain that they 
are not expected to have any such favour—they are to retire upon 
a pension for the rest of their lives. | 

The Church of Scotland too, #ffords us similar BH In- 
deed, at one time there was no such thing in Scotland as a Bishop 
with a diocese. From early times down to as late a period as the 
11th century, there were no dioceses there; but all Bishops there 
were Bishops at large, confining the exercise of their functions 
to no defined limits. Collier says this arrangement continued 
from the year 840, to the reign of Malcolm HI. in 1407.* A new 
organization was then introduced, which centinued autil towards 
the end of the 17th century. In 1688 occurred the revolution 
which expelled the race of Stuarts, and established the Prince of 
Orange upon the throne. The Bishops of Scotland, called Won- 
jurors from their refusing to swear allegiance to William LIL, 
thereby lost the favour and protection of the government; and in 
the succeeding year the act of the Scotch parliament passed, abo- 
lishing Episcopacy. From that time “the Bishops in Scotland 
had no particular diocesses, but managed their ecclesiastical af- 
fairs in one body, as a college.”’ This last fact will be found in 
the * Papers relating to the Scots Episcopacy, as connected with # 
the English, and the consecration of Bishop Seabury,” published 
as the third Appendix to the Journal of the General Convention 
of 1789, Bioren’s Edition, p. 1113 and also, in Skinner’s Eccle- 
siastical History of Scotland, vol, 2, p. 628. And, @though this 
inconvenient arrangement has since been changed, and the Bish- 
ops of the Scots Church now have their several dioceses, and are 
no longer consecrated as they formerly were,t as *‘ Bishops at 
large,”? it is very plain that they do not regard a “ Bishop at 
large” as so monstrous an anomaly as some consider him, since 
at this very moment they have a ** Missionary Bishop,” destitute 
of every thing like diocesan jurisdiction, and travelling on the 
continent to perform the spiritual functions of a Bishop among 


* Eccles. Hist. Anno 840, 
¢ See Skinner’s Primitive Truth and Order, chap. 3, passim. 


38 


the Protestants in France and Holland, who may desire his ser- 
vices, * | sateen ay ei ae 

In a very interesting branch of the Christian Church, acknow- 
ledged by us to be Apostolic, and justly admired for its close ap- 
proximation to the primitive pattern, all the Bishops are mere 
Missionary Bishops, ‘ Bishops at large.” Yes, in the Moravian 
Church, there is no such thing as a diocese known, nor any other 
Bishop but © Bishops at large.” I merely addace this remarka- 
ble fact to shew, that a Bishop at large is not so anomalous a cha- 
racter as is by some supposed,—not, by any means, to intimate 
that the arrangement adopted by the United Brethren is the best 
organization of a Church, or one that would suit our circumstan— 
ces. It probably is the best for them, as the Bishops at large in 
the Methodist Connexion, are best adapted to their itinerant, and 
otherwise peculiar establishment. 1 

Perhaps I may not gain much by adducing the practice of the 
Church of Rome: it may, in the minds of some, operate, against 
my argument. But certainly the practice of that extensive branch 
of the Church, distinctly recognises the existence of Bishops at 
large, and is worthy of serious consideration, ‘There are in that 
Church, multitudes of Bishops without sees—mere * titular Bish- 
ops,” bearing the names of dioceses which they never saw, over 
which they do not pretend to exercise jurisdiction, and in which 
there are Churches and Bishops that do not recognise their autho- 
rity, or even know of their existence. Of this character are the 
nominal ¢* Patriarchs’? of Constantinople, Alexandria, Autiocls 
and Jerusail)ja, who are mere chaplains to the Pope, resident at 
Rome; and who never saw the dioceses from which they derive 
their titles, and exercise no diocesan jurisdiction whatever, al- 
though Bishops, And of this character are their numerous Bish- 
ops ‘in partibus,” as they are called,—that is, Bishops for the ter- 
ritories [infidelium| of the infidels. 

While I am speaking, there is put into my hand a note from a 
clerical friend, who states, upon the authority of a gentleman re- 


* This errangement is fully approved of by the authorities of the Church of 
England, since Bishop Luscombe, the Scotch Missionary Bishop, has been ap= 
pointed special commissioner to the Bishop 0 London, for Continental purposes, 
and Chaplain to the British Embassy at the French Court. 


39 


cently from Greece, and now in orders in our Church, that there 
ave at this moment in that country, no less than six Bishops at 
large be longing to the Greek Church; and that their situation is 
not regarded there as any thing strange. It is not, then, we see, 
so anti-episcopal a thing that there should be * Bishops at large,” 
since it is a thing not uncommon in Episcopal Churches. How-- 
ever inexpedient it may be for us to have such Bishops, (and I 
grant that it is inexpedient.) | donot see that upon that ground 
alone, there ought to be any objection made in the case of the re- 
signed Bishop of Ohio, since no law yet exists to rahi what he 
has done, 

But while U defend. the canonical propriety of Bishcp Ghasets’ 
resignation, and advocate the consecration of the Bishop elect of 
Ohio, | cannot but express the hope, that the resignation of Bishop 
Chase will not be allowed to pass asa sited Yor future résig- 
nations; bat that some measures may be taken by this Conven— 
tion, to put an effectual stop to all similar proceedings. TI do be- 
lieve that serious evils may result to the Church from the unre- 
strained resignations of Bishops; and among these evils, one of 
the most certain, and one of the most serious, will be the malfi- 
plication of Bishops. Much has been said lately in favour of the 
increase of their numbers; and it has been represented as a thing 
highly desirable., A pamphlet advocating these views, and ad- 
dressed particularly to the members of this Convention, has been 
extensively circulated in the house. And among other things, the 
example of the primitive Church has been a as true, 


that in early times, the number of Bishops was veryg#¥reat, com- 
pared to their present number. In Asia Minor, which was scarce- 
ly larger than the island of Great Britain, we are told, there were 
nearly four hundred Bishops. In proconsular Africa, the narrow 
strip of that continent which extended along the Mediterranean 
to from two to five hundred miles ouly inkand, there were in the 
days of Augustine, four hundred and sixty-six Bishopricks; and 
in Egypt. about a hundred. In the small region of Palestine, 
there were about fifty. In Italy, including the islands of Sicily, 
Sardinia, and Corsica, and a part of the country beyond the Alps, 
there were three hundred, All this is true. Yet it must be recol- 
lected how immensely populous these countries were, compared to 


Te i ASLO RRS Oh OR Beto f Bas A cy oo) ae ay Sane MPAs eee 


40 


ours. In the single diocese of Cyrus in Syria, which was only 
forty miles long, and about as many in breadth, there were, in the 
time of its Bishop Theodoret the historian, i in the early part of 
the fifth century, no Jess than eight hundred churches. In that — 
small diocese, he brought over to the faith no less than 10,000 - 
Marcionites, besides some thousands more of other heretics.* But. 
the immense multiplication of Bishops in early times was occa- 
sioned chiefly by the unhappy spirit of rivalry introduced into the 
Church by the schism of the Donatists. ‘I'hese perverse schisma- 
tics had made such rapid progress, that in the Conference at Car- 
thage before referred to, they were represented by no less than 
two hundred and seventy-nine Bishops, only seven less than the 
orthodox prelates present; and at a Donatist coungil held in the 
same city nearly a century before, they already had two hundred 
an¢*seventy Bishops.t At last they became so numerous, that at 
one time they had upwards of four hundred Bishops in Africa, 
and in some places had the majority. Both the Orthodox and the 
Donatists, and especially in Aftica, divided and subdivided dio- 
ceses, and multiplied Bishops, for the sole purpose of outnumber- 
ing each other. This was often done too in direct contravention 
of the decrees and canons which prohibited the consecration of 
Bishops for villages and small cities.. But the measure, acknow- 
Jedged to be uncanonical, and in general improper on many ac~ 
counts, was resorted to, and justified, on the ground of necessity. 
But, until the same circumstances occur among us, and the same 
plea can be a le, the example of the ancient Church ought not to 
be adduch)ji . favour of a measure which the ancient Christians 
themselves acknowledged to be wrong, and which ancient canons 
were ngercd | to Peete he nd this SAUNEY the dignity of the Laid 


be greatly Re casei "To be a dignified, soa and harmo~| | 
nious body, the house of Bishops must be composed of a very se-— 
lect few, just sufficient for the wants of the Church, and no more, | 
It must be remembered too, that of the great numbers of ancient | 
Bishops, a great many were inere Chorepiscopi, * Spun Bish— | 


* Theodor, Ep. 113 ad Leon. Ep. 145. Tom. iii. Ed. fol. Paris, 1642. | 
t Valesius, de Schismate Donatistarum, subjoined to Eusebius’ Eccles. Hist. f 
Pe 292, Ed. Paris, 1659. Fol, a 


‘, 
A 
> 


ops plnnitia’ bine dio 3 
‘Cappadocia, i in the fourth « 


ae of Basi i, Bishop: of Caesarea in iw 
century, there were no less” than fifty 
such! But the “« country Bishops” of ancient: days: had not the 


rank and influence which Bishops have among us, and were ‘scarce- , 


i ly more ‘than country parish: ministers of a higher grade. It has | 


e even been thought by some that they were ‘only presbyter S, SO In- 


ferior were they in the Church. To prevent the dangerous in— 


crease. ‘of Bishops, we must put an end, or at least a check, to 


: Episcopal resignations. But we can do nothing to bear upon the 


tum ‘valet. ” “As thus applied by them it was a cowardly ma 


case. ‘before us. The act ‘is done, and cannot be prevented,—or 


even, that I see, rectified. We cannot pass an ex post facto law. 
It must stand ;—but I trust, it will not be suffered to stand as a 


precedent. All that we can do, is to apply to such cases the maxim 
of the Fathers on the subject of lay-baptism : ** fieri non a 


and, in my judgment, it was false. Part of it indeed was ume. 


_“ Fieri non debet,”’—that was true,—lay-baptism ‘ ought not to 
be performed : °°—_** factum valet,”’ that was false. At least I think 


so. But to the case of an Episcopal resignation, it fully and Just- 
ly applies. 

I have only to say, that I do not see how the house is to refuse 
to sign the testimonials of Dr. McIlvaine. The only possible rea- 
son that can be advanced against their doing so, at least so far as 
I understand the matter, and so far as any thing has yet been 
made to appear, is the inexpediency of sanctioning the oceedings 
in Ohio, As to the inexpediencies of this case, th 
differences of opinion. By many well acquainted w 


>of that diocese, and the recent transactions there, it is viewed as 


a matter highly expedient, and indeed absolutely necessary, that 
Bishop Chase should retire, and that a successor sligyjd enter at 
once upon the superintendence of the diocese. The ™onvention 
of the Diocese, and Bishop Chase himself, are evidently of this_ 
opinion, and perhaps they are the best qualified to judge of this 
point. But, whatever scruples may be entertained upon the ground 


* The number of the Chorepiscopi was no doubt greatly increased by the pro- 
vision made by the council of Nice, in its famous 8th Canon, that the Novatian 
Bishops coming over to the Church, should be received and allowed to officiate 
in that capacity. The same provision was made for the Meletian Bishops, and 
Subsequently for some others, to encourage their return to the unity of the Church. 


yi in Piatti in it ord ae Bishop Sherloc Ho 
sou in what L have offered, it will prevail with rez 


if there be not, I am not s so unreasonable as to ‘desir 
i ae 


- *Rishop sheriveks “Arguments pe the fe pebh of the Con ‘Dp 
(Gat the end. Pe alae be 


sf ¥ 
ot 
% a 
° 
' 
\ 
~ sii 
e 
i i - 
He 
‘ a A 
S &@ 
we e 
een 4 ih 
+ lies 5 
‘ ; 
. fi 
I i 
h yi i 
eh 
* Pr 
. iy ‘ 
eos 
oe i 
4 y 
Age 2 
‘ ; ASS a | * ’ 
. re 
iN re 
Vig 
Nod 
c 5 | 
as 
Bes) 
3 
NG is ) 
; eee . 
a 
i *% 
\ 
ie 
be WO) ' " 
& i 
i r 
bat r 
i ¢ si bs 
(B» i) 
ve ¥ \ 
AH t 


